gocatgo - " As for guns, just because 1.4 million were stolen in burglaries between 1994-2010 by criminals is no reason to be alarmed. "

Exactly. It is pointless to outlaw guns because outlaws don't obey laws. The solution is to make use of guns in a crime self-correcting. The more people that have guns, the more likely a criminal is to die of a gunshot during the commission of a crime, thus making society safer.

WOW, 1.4 million in 16 years or 87,500 per year out of 2-300 million guns. And commited by CRIMINALS! How dare they! Don't they know that is against the law!!

Yet in one year 2009, there were an estimated 2,199,125 burglaries!

Which, by the way is a decrease of 1.3 percent when compared with 2008 data. (FBI data)

Of course with 2.3 million criminals behind bars, more than any other nation, according to data maintained by the International Center for Prison Studies at King’s College London and the revolving door policy of the judicial system; I am alarmed! At the number of criminals we have! No wonder we need guns to protect ourselves!!

We were all warned as children that a sling shot could put someone's eye out. Our parents weren't spreading bs were they? As for guns, just because 1.4 million were stolen in burglaries between 1994-2010 by criminals is no reason to be alarmed.

Anti- gay people are often called “homophobic”. So, are anti-gun people “gunophobic”?

There does seem to be a connection between the two groups

Both parties seem to be mentally unstable. Both are hysterical, raging fanatics. Both are hurting innocent people, and neither one cares. Both are so sure they are right that they will do anything in their power to enforce their beliefs through useless and hurtful laws.

In the news this week, a Southern California man was put under 72-hour psychiatric observation when it was found he owned 100 guns and had (by rough estimate) 1 million rounds of ammunition stored in his home. The house also has a secret escape tunnel.

The television reporter said: "Wow! He has about a million machine gun bullets!", and the headline referred to it as a "massive weapons cache".

By California standards someone owning even 100,000 rounds would be called "mentally unstable".

If he lived elsewhere, such as Arizona , he'd be called "an avid gun collector."

In Oklahoma, he'd be called "a novice gun collector".

In Utah, he'd be called "moderately well prepared", but they'd probably reserve judgment until they made sure that he had a corresponding quantity of stored food.

In Montana, he'd be called "the neighborhood 'Go-To' guy".

In Idaho, he'd be called "a likely gubernatorial candidate".

In Wyoming, he'd be called "an eligible bachelor".

and... In Texas , he'd be called "a Hunting Buddy"............It's all in your perspective.

But dont worry we have the help of "good ol Joe" - "Biden talked also about taking responsible action. "As the president said, if your actions result in only saving one life, they're worth taking. But I'm convinced we can affect the well-being of millions of Americans and take thousands of people out of harm's way if we act responsibly."

Well if thats the new standard we can come up with lots of things to do that will result in saving only one life or more. How about we look at waht actions result in saving the most lives at the least cost in dollars, damage to the economy and minor things like restrictions on freedom.

MartyIt has been documented more than once you "Dear Leader" has stormed out of the room when things were not going his way.Just saw and looked it up The President CAN NOT make law by executive order.He can try but it is not enforceable if the money is not there.

I disagreed with what she did. It was wrong. However, Vietnam was not a declared war. Therefore she could not have committed treason. Like it or not, there is a reason why the definition of treason is very narrow. It should be kept that way.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. --Article 3 Section 3, U. S. Constitution

Amazing how the right claims to be so well versed on the Constitution have no idea what it says. The above statement is proof of that. Try reading the Constitutional definition of treason before making statements like the above.

A large part of the British Health Care system is taken up with repairing damaged people who are victims of violent criminals. The situation is compounded by the elderly being the most favored targets. Old bones break more easily, and take longer to heal.

According to twenty five years of research by Professor Emeritus Gay Kleck and his students, the main reason violent crime is not as high in America is simply the fear of being shot by the victim. Kleck’s studies show that the death rate from violent crime would more than double if guns were not so prevalent. His studies also show that over 80% of suicides would happen even if there were no guns.

92% of incarcerated criminals admitted that they would not break into an occupied house for fear of being shot. 16% were afraid of being caught by the police.

This is not knee jerk reaction fed by an exploitive press. This is not the frenzy of scared people who believe inert metal objects are possessed by the devil. This is not the meandering ramblings of fanatical true believers. These are facts, back by years of hard work and scientific methods.

How odd that people who usually support science can be deluded by non scientific hysteria.

A small town in Utah is responding to the recent mass shooting of 20 children in Connecticut by pushing through a resolution that calls for every home to have a gun, and the town wants to provide free concealed carry training for all elementary school teachers.

"The first recommendation was that we require, or we recommend, every household have a gun and be properly trained to use it," Spring City Councilman Neil Sorensen, who authored the resolution, told KSL on Monday.

But some residents -- including the Sanpete County sheriff -- were a little uncomfortable with requiring all residents to be armed so Sorensen agreed to dial back the resolution.

"Marty You need to look at more sights than this one BOTH Left and Right are now talking civil war if they do not get there way and YOUR DEAR LEADER is doing NOTHING and I repeat NOTHING to calm the rhetoric in fact is fanning the flames."

Who says I looked only at this one site? And talk about civil war certainly sounds like rage, paranoia, and phobia all rolled into one. You aren't hearing anything like that from me.

As I indicated earlier, I have no Dear Leader but Christ.

You expect =President Obama= to calm the rhetoric? Seriously?? Have those espousing guns-for-everyone no control over their =own= actions, speech, or rhetoric?

"Oh and the latest, if cry baby Obama doesn't get his way according to Biden he will issue executive orders AGAINST the constitution? When does TREASON start to kick in?"

That you have a need to call the President names indicates the shallowness of your argument. How do you know the executive order violates the constitution without having read the order? Treason is well-defined in the Constitution; you should study up on what it says.

Marty You need to look at more sights than this one BOTH Left and Right are now talking civil war if they do not get there way and YOUR DEAR LEADER is doing NOTHING and I repeat NOTHING to calm the rhetoric in fact is fanning the flames. Oh and the latest, if cry baby Obama doesn't get his way according to Biden he will issue executive orders AGAINST the constitution? When does TREASON start to kick in?

"Well Marty we had a bunch of people weilding boxcutters who killed thousands almost simutaneously didnt we."

Interesting yet phony twist on history.

"Are you leading the charge here on gas buddy or not?"

I'm not leading any charge. I'm just stating my position with force of evidence and clear thinking behind it. You should try it sometime.

"Someday your going to have to just take responsibility for your comments"

I stand behind my comments. What more are you asking?

"Just a rude observation now mind ya."

Rudeness is a poor substitute for evidence to support your position. It's also your trademark.

"Marty has neither the clout nor the ability to do anything to the Constitution just like now the Senator that has introduced the bill to do away with the 22nd amendment so his "Dear Leader" can become the New Dictator of the Communist States Of America."

I have as much clout as anyone else with free speech, and I have no Dear Leader but Christ.

"Neither will happen and both attempt's could result in a civil war."

A civil war started by someone who has no clout. Do you even read what you typed before hitting "Post Meeeage?"

Chicago’s “Godfather” Goes after Guns.>>>Hizzoner began by begging the Illinois General Assembly to move swiftly to ban all so-called “assault weapons.” Speaking at a recent graduation ceremony for Chicago Police Officers Emanuel opined, “it is time to have that vote” in Springfield and in Washington, DC. Democrat lawmakers in Springfield quickly fell in line. As reported by the NRA, legislation proposed last week would impose “sweeping semi-automatic and magazine bans,” in addition to “requiring registration of firearms and magazines, and crippling shooting ranges through onerous restrictions.”

Fortunately, for Chicago’s beleaguered citizens, Democrats failed to muster the votes in either the state House or Senate, and the Emanuel-supported legislation died -- for now.

The better news out of Illinois, however, is that the federal Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently issued an opinion authored by well-known judge Richard Posner, striking down as unconstitutional the state’s draconian ban on private carry of firearms.

Posner’s well-researched, logic-based Seventh Circuit opinion noted that, “[a] blanket prohibition on carrying [a] gun in public prevents a person from defending himself anywhere except inside his home.” The jurist went on to scold the Illinois legislature for preventing citizens from being able to defend themselves on the mean streets of cities like Chicago, in the absence of an overriding justification which he concluded clearly was not present as a basis for the existing ban.

Preventing law-abiding citizens from possessing firearms to protect themselves from criminals as roam the streets of Chicago may satisfy a political agenda such as Emanuel’s. In reality, however, such measures draw attention away from the real causes of violent criminal activity; at the same time blunting the process of finding solutions to those problems -- gang activity, drug usage, mental health issues, and culture-fueled violence.

As Posner aptly stated, laws are not meant to be psychological safety blankets for politicians. If government is to limit a constitutionally-protected right in the name of public safety, overriding empirical -- not hypothetical -- evidence must be shown to justify that loss of liberty. Chicago’s violent crime speaks volumes to the ineffectiveness of gun control. As such, gun legislation that reduces the right to keep and bear arms is nothing more than a red herring.

At best, overzealous gun control adds unnecessary burdens to purchasing and owning firearms for law-abiding citizens. At its worst, as we see clearly in Chicago, gun control reduces law-abiding citizens to cold crime statistics. Hopefully Posner’s decision, which he stayed for 180 days, will stand and override the shibboleth of gun control that is the Holy Grail of liberal politicians from Chicago to New York and from Washington, DC to San Francisco.<<<

More insanity from the Proggies.

Next thing you know someone will tell them that some homeless people die from the cold in the winter - so they will demand a ban on winter in Chicago.

YDraigGochI am actually startled both you and I agree on these topic's you have started. Good Show!!!!flyboyUTMarty has neither the clout nor the ability to do anything to the Constitution just like now the Senator that has introduced the bill to do away with the 22nd amendment so his "Dear Leader" can become the New Dictator of the Communist States Of America. Neither will happen and both attempt's could result in a civil war.

Well Marty we had a bunch of people weilding boxcutters who killed thousands almost simutaneously didnt we. We had a person or more who used a truck load of fertilizer to kill a lot more than 26 fairly fast.

Once more the question is directed at you - what is your concern people dying or objects you personally dont like.

As far as your campaign to amend the constitution. Are you leading the charge here on gas buddy or not? Someday your going to have to just take responsibility for your comments - or maybe you and your proggie/lib buddies can just keep on throwing stink bombs and run away. Like other childish behavior you folks have engaged in.

The more I play here the more it seems the primary difference between rascally nasty cons and prog/libs is the raspy ones are willing to accept responsibility for what they say and do while the prog/libs just wnat to either 'do what feels good' and dont care about consequences or they just want to throw stink bombs and run away from what they say. Just a rude observation now mind ya.

"But minor little thing keep popping up - like the number of peopel killed each year with carpenters tools (hammers) vs rifles."

Tell me the last time 26 people were killed simultaneously by one individual wielding a carpenters hammer, and then I'll grant you the equivalence. Good grief... is that the best you have?

"Oh really then why do you keep on promoting it if its not 'your campaign'?"

I'm just a voice crying in the wilderness. I know it's annoying, but you don't have to read my posts or respond to them. And yet you feel compelled to.

"After all the balderdash you have posted about wanting to amend the Constitution to remove the peoples right to keep and bear arms there is no way you will not be held responsible for supporting what has become YOUR CAMPAIGN here."

Hold me responsible for supporting the repeal of the Second Amendment? Really? That tells me that the notion has more than just a little merit and that the gun nuts are beginning to wet their panties.

But minor little thing keep popping up - like the number of peopel killed each year with carpenters tools (hammers) vs rifles. Some one said more folks die from assault with carpenters tools than long guns.

I do believe the supposed first recorded assault weapon was a rock picked up from the ground. Marty just how far back do you wish to go on the assault weapon thing. Do you want to confine it to just firearms? Then why does Japan and other places 'control' edged weapons like boxcutters and anchient edged assault weapons?

Then the fun one comes out - "It's not "my campaign,". Oh really then why do you keep on promoting it if its not 'your campaign'? Surely you dont think it was started by Charlton Heston do you? Do you think the members of the NRA are part of the campaign to remove the 2nd amendment from the Constitution as you keep saying you want to do.

After all the balderdash you have posted about wanting to amend the Constitution to remove the peoples right to keep and bear arms there is no way you will not be held responsible for supporting what has become YOUR CAMPAIGN here. At least have the intestional fortitude to stand behind your words.

"To accept the idea that weapons cause crime and murder is to deny the fact that there are some disturbed and bad people out there."

I never claimed that weapons cause crime and murder, I claim that weapons make crime and murder easier to accomplish and on a greater scale. I'm not denying there are disturbed and bad people "out there." What I wish to deny is the means by which they can inflict carnage on a massive scale.

"You may decide to be a pacifist, but please allow those of us qualified to defend ourselves the right to do so."

You do have that right, for now. If that right ever disappears, it will be because the Constitution has been amended by the people using Constitutional means.

"You, sir, have absolutely no more right to leave my family defenceless than a Laughner has to attack them. That attitude simply makes you an accessory. An enabler."

I'm leaving nobody defenseless, and your addressing me on a personal level is as disturbing as your equating my position on a level equal to Laughner's slaughter is disgusting. Perhaps Piers Morgan should interview you next.

"But I am probably wasting my time trying to convince someone whose rage, paranoia, and phobias has disabled his ability to see or accept reason."

My "rage" consists of countering every point made by by gun enthusiasts with valid counterpoint.

Paranoia? I'm not someone who sees Laughner hiding in my neighborhood waiting to pounce rabidly on my family. I'm not someone who wants to arm every schoolteacher in the nation. I'm not someone who worries that his rights will be "taken away" overnight. Seriously, which of us is paranoid?

Phobias? I'm not someone who owns a gun for the purpose of defending against the "bad guys" and then worries about the "bad guys" knowing I have a gun. Good grief.

"Read the books published by Gary Kleck, Professor Emeritus at Florida Sate University. He started out believing just like you. But then years of research and scientific reason convinced him he was incorrect. He, unlike you, has an open mind."

There was a time when I believed the Second Amendment was a necessary thing. Then it became a necessary evil. Now it's an anachronism. I changed my position on bearing arms in the same manner Professor Kleck has, only from the opposite pole. My mind is open, but not so open that I will accept a notion just because someone disagrees with me, and I'm not one to back down because someone knows how to talk like a tough guy. Stick the tough talk in your ditty bag and challenge me on the merits of my ideas, or shut up.

"So the big question is, do YOU have the courage to learn something new, or will you just keep acting like a know it all?"

I'm not acting.

"Kleck's Twenty five years of research proves conclusively thet you are wrong. Can you handle that?"

Professor Kleck's research provides evidence to support his position. Proof is overstating the case.

As Bruce Lee put it : "If everyone practised nothing but self defense, then no one would need it"

To accept the idea that weapons cause crime and murder is to deny the fact that there are some disturbed and bad people out there.

You may decide to be a pacifist, but please allow those of us qualified to defend ourselves the right to do so.

You, sir, have absolutely no more right to leave my family defenceless than a Laughner has to attack them. That attitude simply makes you an accessory. An enabler.

But I am probably wasting my time trying to convince someone whose rage, paranoia, and phobias has disabled his ability to see or accept reason.

Read the books published by Gary Kleck, Professor Emeritus at Florida Sate University. He started out believing just like you. But then years of research and scientific reason convinced him he was incorrect. He, unlike you, has an open mind.

So the big question is, do YOU have the courage to learn something new, or will you just keep acting like a know it all? Kleck's Twenty five years of research proves conclusively thet you are wrong. Can you handle that?

Oh good grief, the word "guns" appears in the post. The thought police will not be far off. In fact, the sound of their goose-stepping black boots can be heard in the distance. Goch . . . are you still there? Did they come for you? Goch?

You said you wish to remove the 2nd amendment - that says we have the right to keep and bear arms. You have said (I believe) you are against of dont think anyone should own assault weapons.

HOw about letting us know what you mean by 'bear arms' and were you define the limits of what you think an assault weapon is.

Why do I keep on picking on you - well maybe it has to do with the idea your ideas are not logical and have no bounds. Like someone saying they want to raise taxes and when asked how much on who the only answer is MORE on the RICH.

But have you given any thoght as to what the effects will be of your campaign - if it succeeds or if it just makes lots of folks wonder if it may cause more restrictions on our rights?

That's easy. "Assault weapon" is a political term devised to include any firearm the politician wants banned.

Bur seriously, here's the wikipedia definition:"Assault weapon refers to different types of firearms, and is a term that has differing meanings and usages.

In discussions about gun laws and gun politics in the United States, an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain features similar to those of military firearms. Semi-automatic firearms fire one bullet (round) each time the trigger is pulled; the spent cartridge case is ejected and another cartridge is loaded into the chamber, without the manual operation of a bolt handle, a lever, or a sliding handgrip. An assault weapon has a detachable magazine, in conjunction with one, two, or more other features such as a pistol grip, a folding stock, a flash suppressor, or a bayonet lug.[1] Most assault weapons are rifles, but some are pistols or shotguns. Other legislation defines the term more broadly to mean any semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine, which includes the majority of all firearms.[2] The exact definition of the term in this context is set differently by each of the various laws that limit or prohibit their manufacture, importation, sale, or possession. These laws include the now-expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban, as well as state and local laws. Whether or not assault weapons should be legally restricted more than other firearms, how they should be defined, and even whether or not the term "assault weapon" should be used at all, are questions subject to considerable debate."